P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, represented by its Executive Officer, filed the present Writ Petition seeking relief of writ of certiorari for quashing the award passed in I. D. No. 105/94, dated 6-8-1997 made by the Chairman-cum-Presiding officer, Labour Court Anantapur -1st respondent herein, in favour of 2nd respondent herein. ( 2 ) THOUGH the respective pleadings of the parties as can be seen are very lengthy, the important contentions, which had been raised are as follows: (1) Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, tirupati, is not an "industry" within the meaning of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (2) The 2nd respondent claiming the office of Assistant Stapathy, is not a "workman" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (3) The 2nd respondent who had invoked the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent in I. D. No. 1,06/94 had failed to discharge his burden and hence in the absence of any evidence, the impugned award is liable to be quashed. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief are as follows: The case of the 2nd respondent herein - petitioner in I. D. No. 106/94 on the file of the 1st respondent, is that he was originally appointed as Works Supervisor in Stapathy department on 1-10-1976 on daily wage basis of Rs. 10/- and since then he had been working without break and however a periodical one day break was shown in the records from the date of his appointment, but he had been continuously working and on 22-7-1980 he was promoted as Assistant stapathy on daily wage basis of Rs. 18/- per day and he was asked to attend other works at Sri Padmavathiammavari Temple and srinivasa Mangapuram on 5-12-1991 simultaneously and his supervisors appreciated his work as satisfactory and thus he had put in continuous service of more then six years in the Stapathy department. It is also stated that in pursuance of G. O. Ms. No. 1458, Revenue (End-Ill) Department, dated 19-6-1981 directing the Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams to regularize the employees who are on the rolls from 1-1-1975 to 31-12-1978, the Devasthanams prepared a list of employees who have been working as n. M. Rs. It is also stated that in pursuance of G. O. Ms. No. 1458, Revenue (End-Ill) Department, dated 19-6-1981 directing the Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams to regularize the employees who are on the rolls from 1-1-1975 to 31-12-1978, the Devasthanams prepared a list of employees who have been working as n. M. Rs. as on 19-9-1981 and regularized their services, except the 2nd respondent herein for the reason that he was under suspension vide proceedings dated 19-4-1982 and no doubt the Management on due enquiry reinstated him into service as per the order dated 20-12-1982. Subsequent thereto, he had demanded to regularize his services as per the aforesaid G. O. and made several representations, but however the tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams terminated his services orally with effect from 1-4-1983 without any reason whatsoever and before such termination neither any charge memo was issued nor any charge-sheet was served nor any enquiry was conducted against him and he made several representations in this regard and none of them had been answered except the last one on 8-4-1988 addressed to the chairman by forwarding the same to executive Engineer for further action. Subsequent thereto, W. P. No. 6552/88 seeking the relief of reinstatement and regularization was filed, but it was dismissed with an observation that he can approach the Board of Management of tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams or the government for the relief and hence he preferred an Appeal to the Board of management on 27-4-1994 and the same is pending disposal. It is further stated that the services of his juniors have been regularized and in such circumstances he had invoked the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, in short hereinafter referred to as "i. D. Act" for convenience. ( 4 ) THE Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams had filed a counter in detail, no doubt admitting about the appointment of the 2nd respondent by the Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams as Works Supervisor on daily wages and later promoting him as assistant Staphathy. It was also stated that as per G. O. Ms. No. 1458, dated 19-8-1991, regularization of N. M. Rs. ( 4 ) THE Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams had filed a counter in detail, no doubt admitting about the appointment of the 2nd respondent by the Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams as Works Supervisor on daily wages and later promoting him as assistant Staphathy. It was also stated that as per G. O. Ms. No. 1458, dated 19-8-1991, regularization of N. M. Rs. has to be made on the basis of qualifications possessed by the employee and the appointments were purely made on merit basis by conducting interviews and since the 2nd respondent did not possess the necessary qualifications and also failed to attend the interview, he cannot seek regularization of his services on the basis of the alleged continuous service. It was also stated that though he was under suspension during the period, his services were restored only on humanitarian grounds. It was also stated that his services were extended from time to time as there was sufficient work during a particular period but however he was stopped from his duties and it is also stated that there is no sufficient work in the Department and hence the N. M. Rs. were not continued and since the 2nd respondent was only a N. M. R. there was no necessity for the Department to issue regular proceedings terminating his services. It was also stated that since Appeal was preferred by him and the same is pending, the I. D. was premature. ( 5 ) HERE itself it is pertinent to note that no oral or documentary evidence had been adduced by both the parties and on the respective pleadings of the parties, the 1st respondent had made the following award:"in the result, an award is passed setting aside the oral termination against the petitioner dated 1-4-1993 and directing respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits and also to pay one month s wages in lieu of the termination notice and compensation as per Section 25-F of the I. D. Act and thus the relief of backwages is rejected. "questioning the same, the Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams had preferred the present writ Petition. ( 6 ) IT is brought to my notice that in pursuance of the award, the 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition was in fact reinstated and he is continuing in service as on to-day. "questioning the same, the Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams had preferred the present writ Petition. ( 6 ) IT is brought to my notice that in pursuance of the award, the 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition was in fact reinstated and he is continuing in service as on to-day. ( 7 ) SRI Adinarayana Raju, the learned counsel representing the Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams, Tirupati had made the following submissions. The first and the foremost contention raised by the learned counsel is that the Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams, Tirupati is not an "industry" within the meaning of the I. D. Act and this is a jurisdictional aspect and unless this aspect is satisfied, there is no question of the 1st respondent granting any relief in favour of the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to paragraph-5 of the counter-affidavit filed by tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams in i. D. No. 106/94 on the file of the 1st respondent wherein a specific stand had been taken that Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams is not an "industry" within the meaning of the I. D. Act. It is also contended that apart from it, the departmental Appeal filed by the 2nd respondent also is pending and even in this view of matter, the relief granted by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained. The learned counsel further contended that the activities of Tirumala tirupati Devasthanams, predominantly are religious in nature and the duties of this assistant Stapathy also, as can be seen from the qualifications, are more religious in nature and hence it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent is a "workman" within the meaning of the I. D. Act. The learned counsel had drawn my attention to several provisions of the I. D. Act and also the different provisions of A. P. Charitable and hindu Religious Institutions and endowments Act, 1987, in short hereinafter called as "act 30 of 1987" for the purpose of convenience, and also the relevant service rules in this regard. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on an unreported decision rendered in w. P. No. 365/59 dated 18-8-1959 to show that the burden to establish the jurisdiction of the industrial Tribunal or Labour Court is on the workman. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to a decision of the apex Court in Bharat Bhaiuan Trust v. Bharat bhawan Artists Association. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to a decision of the apex Court in Bharat Bhaiuan Trust v. Bharat bhawan Artists Association. ( 8 ) SRI Ramachander Rao, the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent had strenuously contended that except raising a ground that the Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams is not an "industry", in fact no arguments also had been advanced before the 1st respondent and hence the question had not been considered by the 1st respondent. The learned counsel also further contended that the tests laid down by the apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply and sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, hold the field even to this day and even if taken that the predominant function of the Tirumala tirupati Devasthanams is religious function, it cannot be said that all the Departments and the wings of the Institution under tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams do not fall or do not answer the definition of "industry" under the I. D. Act. The learned counsel also had further contended that as can be seen from the claim made and also the allegations in the counter, the factual aspects are not in dispute at all and further even on admitted facts it cannot be said that the termination is sustainable and inasmuch as the termination is illegal termination within the meaning of the I. D. Act, the 1st respondent had rightly exercised the powers under the provisions of the I. D. Act and held that the termination is illegal and had granted appropriate relief. It is also submitted that when the facts are not in dispute, there is no necessity of letting in any evidence and hence there is no question of the workman discharging any burden in this regard. The learned counsel had urged that on the ground of equity since the 2nd respondent had been in fact reinstated and he is being continued, in the facts and circumstances of the case, he cannot be disturbed at this distant point of time. ( 9 ) HEARD both the counsel at length and also perused the records available on record. ( 10 ) THE Tirumala Tirupatidevasthanams, tirupati, is at present governed by Act 30 of 1987. The preamble of the Act specifies that it is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the administration and governance of charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments in the State of Andhra pradesh. ( 10 ) THE Tirumala Tirupatidevasthanams, tirupati, is at present governed by Act 30 of 1987. The preamble of the Act specifies that it is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the administration and governance of charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments in the State of Andhra pradesh. Chapter XIV of the said Act deals with Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. The legislative background can be traced from madras Hindu Religious and Endowments act, 1925 (Act 1 of 1925), which was only a short-lived legislation, replaced by Madras act 2 of 1927, which in fact had undergone several amendments and ultimately the madras Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Act, 1951 was enacted and on formation of the State of Andhra and thereafter, the 1951 Act was in force in andhra Area of the State and subsequent thereto the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed and the aforesaid Madras Act was in force in Andhra Area and Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Wakf Regulation of 1349 fasli was applicable to the Telangana Area. Subsequent thereto, uniform legislation was thought of and accordingly A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and endowments Act, 1966 (Act 17/66) was enacted. But however, in view of the importance of the Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams, a separate legislation tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Act, 1979, was enacted which came into force on 18-5-1979 and subsequent thereto Act 30 of 1987 came into force on 28-5-1987. Section 155 of the Act 30 of 1987 specifically says that the A. P. Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 and the Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams Act, 1979 are hereby repealed. Thus, the Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams is now governed by the provisions of Act 30 of 1987. From the scheme and the object of the Act and also the different provisions governing the Tirumala tirupati Devasthanams, it is clear that the predominant activity of the Tirumala tirupati Devasthanams is the religious activity concerned with Hindu religion. It is no doubt true that there are several departments, several wings and several institutions also within and under the control of the said Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams. Whatever the position may be, as far as the predominant job of the writ petitioner is concerned, it is only religious activity. The main contention which had been argued elaborately is on the aspect of applicability of the I. D. Act to the writ petitioner. Whatever the position may be, as far as the predominant job of the writ petitioner is concerned, it is only religious activity. The main contention which had been argued elaborately is on the aspect of applicability of the I. D. Act to the writ petitioner. The I. D. Act is an Act to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes. The three tests referred in the decision referred (2) supra are as under: (1) that the Institution is engaged in a systematic activity; (2) organized by co-operation between employer and employee; (3) for the production of goods and services. In Suresh Kumar and others v. Union of India and others it was held that an Institution of yoga falls within the meaning of industry under the I. D. Act. In the decision referred (1) supra, when the question that fell for consideration is whether a Trust for promotion of art and culture, can be called as "industry" the Apex Court without deciding the said issue finally held that since the Bharat Bhavan Trust is engaged only in the promotion of art and preservation of artistic talent and its activities being not one of those in which there can be a large scale production to involve co-operation of efforts of the employer and employee, it is doubtful to hold it as an industry under the definition given under the I. D. Act. In Federated municipal and Shire Council Employees Union of Australia v. Melbourne Corporation, the australian High Court while dealing with the concept of "industry" observed:"the concept may thus be formulated. Industrial disputes occur when, in relation to operations in which capital and labour are contributed in cooperation for the satisfaction of human wants and desires, those engaged in co-operation dispute as to the basis to be observed by the parties engaged, respecting either a share of the product or any other terms and conditions of their co-operation". The learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent had strenuously contended that the decision referred (2) supra holds the field even to this day and hence the mere fact that the Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams as such is involved in the religious activity by itself cannot be the test to decide whether it falls within the meaning of "industry" under the I. D. Act or not. The learned counsel also had contended that the tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams is having several wings like the General administration, Engineering section, electrical section, Water Works section, radio and Broadcasting section, photographs section, Medical services, transport Department, Forest Department, s. V. Dairy Farm, Museums, Bala Mandir and several other educational Institutions also like S. V. Institute of Traditional sculpture and Architecture etc. The learned counsel further submitted that the tests laid down by the Apex Court in the decision referred (2) supra are definitely applicable in the cases of any workman working in any one of these wings or in any one of these departments and hence it cannot be said that merely because a workman is working under a particular wing of Tirumala tirupati Devasthanams, he cannot be termed as a "workman" within the meaning of the I. D. Act. However, it is needless to mention that though a specific plea was taken in this regard, the 1st respondent had not gone into this question at all and this aspect was not decided. This is a jurisdictional aspect and when a question of this nature is raised, it is the bounden duty of the 1st respondent to decide this question. ( 11 ) THE next question which had been elaborately argued is that even if for a particular wing or for a particular department of Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams all the tests laid down for construing it as an industry are applicable, the office of Assistant Stapathy does not fall within the meaning of "workman" within the meaning of the I. D. Act. Under the tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams employees Service Rules, 1989, under engineering Services, Renovation section, the qualifications essential for Stapathy and assistant Stapathy are specified as hereunder: stapathy: By direct recruitment (I) Must have a certificate showing the successful completion of sculpture training in any of reputed institutions. (II) Must have practical experience of sculpture in preparation of idols in stone and cement for atleast 10 years. (III) Must have constructed a Temple independently. (IV) Must be well-versed in Silpa Sastra and preparation of plans. (V) Preference will be given to the candidates with knowledge in sanskrit or other Dravidian languages. By Promotion: By Promotion from the cadre of Assistant Stapathy. (I) Must have certificate showing the successful completion of sculpture training in any of the reputed institutions. (IV) Must be well-versed in Silpa Sastra and preparation of plans. (V) Preference will be given to the candidates with knowledge in sanskrit or other Dravidian languages. By Promotion: By Promotion from the cadre of Assistant Stapathy. (I) Must have certificate showing the successful completion of sculpture training in any of the reputed institutions. (II) Must have practical experience of sculpture in preparation of idols in stone and cement for atleast five years. (III) Must be well-versed in Silpa Sastra and preparation of plans. (IV) Preference will be given to the candidates with knowledge in sanskrit or other Dravidian languages. (V) Must have put in service of not less than five years as Assistant stapathy. Assistant Stapathy: By direct recruitment (i) Must possess a certificate showing the successful completion of sculpture training in any of the reputed institutions. (ii) Must have practical experience of five years in a major work with a specific recommendation of reputed Stapathy. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, placing strong reliance on the decision referred (I) supra, had contended that since the office of Assistant stapathy is concerned with more artistic work of sculpture, by any stretch of imagination, the 2nd respondent cannot be treated as a "workman" within the meaning of the I. D. Act. No doubt incidentally my attention was drawn that the 2nd respondent already had preferred an appeal in this regard. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the dictionary meanings of "sculpture" in this regard. The New Oxford Thesaurus of english defines the word "sculpture" as follows:"noun a Michelangelo sculpture of the MADONNA CARVING, model, statue, statuette, figure, figurine, effigy, bust, head, image, likeness. "verb the west doorway is richly decorated with sculptured figures sculpt, carve, chisel, model, fashion, form, shape, cast, cut hew; RARE sculp. Likewise, the Chambers Dictionary defines the word "sculptor" as follows: "an artist in carving, esp in stone: - fem sculp tress. adj sculp tural adv sculp turally. n scupl ture the art of carving, esp in stone; extended to clay-modelling or moulding for casting; work, or a piece of work, in this art; engraving (obs); shaping in relief; spines, ridges, etc, standing out from the surface (biol ). adj sculp tural adv sculp turally. n scupl ture the art of carving, esp in stone; extended to clay-modelling or moulding for casting; work, or a piece of work, in this art; engraving (obs); shaping in relief; spines, ridges, etc, standing out from the surface (biol ). vt to carve, shape in relief; to represent in sculpture; to mould, or form, so as to have the appearance or (fig) other quality, of sculpture; to modify the form of (the earth s surface ).- adj sculp tured carved; engraved; (of features) fine and regular like a classical sculpture; having ridges, etc on the surface (bot and zool), - adj sculputuresque.- n sculp turing. [l sculptor, -oris, sculptura, from sculpere, sculptum to carve]. "it is contended that from these definitions it is clear that as far as the duties of the assistant Stapathy are concerned, they are more artistic in nature and the duties are intimately connected with religious duties and hence such office cannot be treated as the office of an ordinary "workman" within the meaning of the I. D. Act. It is needless to mention that this aspect also had not been specifically raised nor it was argued by the tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams before the 1st respondent. However, the second question is no doubt incidental to the first question, since both the questions deal with the applicability of the I. D. Act relating to the present dispute only. No doubt, no evidence was let in by both the parties and a serious attempt was made by the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent that in the claim itself it had been specifically stated that the 2nd respondent is only a "workman" and a specific stand had been taken in this regard and except taking a formal objection in the counter, the Tirumala tirupati Devasthanams was not very i particular on this aspect. However, when a i specific ground is raised, especially regarding jurisdictional question, it is the bounden duty of the Court to decide that question. Apart from this aspect of the matter, when several details had been narrated in the respective pleadings, the labour Court cannot proceed with the matter without recording evidence and no doubt on admitted facts in certain circumstances, the adduction of evidence may not be necessary. Apart from this aspect of the matter, when several details had been narrated in the respective pleadings, the labour Court cannot proceed with the matter without recording evidence and no doubt on admitted facts in certain circumstances, the adduction of evidence may not be necessary. But however, it is always desirable on the part of the Labour court to permit the parties to let in evidence and decide the matter by giving appropriate findings on the strength of such evidence instead of deciding the matter only on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties. The Labour Courts are expected to be more cautious while dealing with the matters and in making the awards, especially where serious objections relating to the jurisdictional aspects had been raised. As already stated supra, it is brought to my notice that the 2nd respondent in fact had been reinstated into service and he is continuing in service and at this distant point of time, I am not inclined to disturb the 2nd respondent and hence the writ petitioner is directed to continue the 2nd respondent in service till a regular enquiry is conducted and concluded by the 1st respondent on the questions discussed in detail, supra. It is also made clear that both the parties are a liberty to let in evidence relating to all the aspects involved in the matter. ( 12 ) WITH the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.